Chaplin Story from 1952

On Apr 9, 1:54 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >Yet when one of them claims Chaplin as
> >a "secret Party member" you use the
> >statement as if it must be gospel.
> False. I simply quote a very significant
> American Communist. I do not know
> if Iit is true, but I wouldn't dismiss it,
> because Lillian Hellman issued similar
> denials and when she died, it was
> revealed that she was a secret CP
> member,

Given that you feel you can't dismiss Budenz's claim
that Chaplin was a dues-paying member of the Communist
Party, you must then feel the government was correct in rescinding
his re-entry permit.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

David Totheroh wrote:

>>Doesn't alter Budenz's statement.

>Which, of course, could NEVER be taken >as one of those "standard
ploy[s]" used
>in an attempt to gain credibility by
>claiming association with a well known
>and respected personality, could it?
>Those commies ALWAYS told the truth
>(except when they didn't, huh, George).

Yawn.

> Interesting to see which ones you pick
>to present as truth and which ones you
>dismiss.

I don't vouch for Budenz, but I don't
think he can so easily be dismissed
either in light of the revelations about
Lillian Hellman's secret Party membership.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 8:03 pm, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >Oh and by the way, in case you don't >know (and George will never tell
> you),
> >Budenz was once a CP member himself
> >before making a very nice living by
> >deciding to become a professional
> >anti-comunist witness.
>
> He was also editor of the Daily Worker,
> the house organ of the CPUSA. \
>
> None of the issues you raised invalidates
> his statement about Chaplin.
>
> >Kinda reminds me of Ahmad Chalabi.
>
> How dooes Iraq relate to the topic
> of Chaplin?

I don't remember mentioning Iraq. Can you show me where I did?

What I DID say was that Budenz reminded me of Chalabi in that both
were opportunists whose stories changed depending on who was paying,
and how much. I thought it was too obvious to need to be spelled out.
It seems I overestimated. Sorry about that.

Budenz was not unlike any number of other relatively insignificant
people who tried to increase their own importance by using Chaplin's
name in less than honest ways. Given his proven (lack of) credibility,
I fail to see why anyone would place the kind of unskeptical
significance in what Budenz said that you do. But then, I thought that
was obvious about Chalabi too.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 2:05 pm, d....TakeThisOut@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Constance Kuriyama)
wrote:
> "Shush" (shushfilmseznos...@yahoo.com) writes:
> > On Apr 9, 9:10 am, bachu....TakeThisOut@rogers.com wrote
> >> Since he'd already
> >> spent one year trying to get the re-entry permit without success
> >> only to have them give it to him one day before his departure,
> I think the reentry permit was issued in July. Chaplin left for
> England in September.

Chaplin says in his Autobio it was issued to him the day before he was
scheduled
to leave California for New York by train to board the Queen Elizabeth
there.
It took a week to cross the country by train.

I was just going by his account which is what I had at hand.
Maybe there's factual information in the other books which
contradicts this.

> then
> >> have
> >> the Attorney General yank it back after one day aboard ship,
> A trivial point, but that was two days.

I note that's what Robinson says - though again in Chaplin's account,
which I was using, he makes it sound as if it's the next day after
leaving the US,

but as you say, trivial...


> >> rightly
> >> had no faith in the integrity of the 'examinaton' he would be
> >> subjected to - after such an
> >> overtly contemptuous and hostile action.
>
> > Yes, and I think this is why Chaplin didn't launch a full legal
> > assault to try having that rescission overturned. He'd already been
> > jerked around for a year by a government that clearly didn't want him
> > to come back, and his chances of passing its "examination" were less
> > than slim. Chaplin knew it, and reconciled himself to spending the
> > rest of his life in Europe.
>
> > To construe that recognition as giving America "the finger," as has
> > been charged here in the past, is remarkable.
>
> > --Shush--
>
> This did tend to look like a monolythic conspiracy, but one of the virtues
> of Kenneth Lynn's account is that he emphasizes McGranery's exercise of
> individual initiative in rescinding Chaplin's reentry permit, based largely
> on his moral convictions (though it is clear that he didn't like Chaplin's
> politics either). The general sentiment in the INS was that it didn't have
> sufficient evidence to deny Chaplin's reentry, and as Robinson points out,
> a number of government officials were disturbed by the negative public
> reaction to McGranery's decision.
>
> As for Chaplin's chances of gaining reentry, it is impossible to say how
> that would have turned out, precisely because there was no one official
> position. It was a question of whether gaining reentry would be worth the
> risk and the expense, both financial and emotional. Chaplin obviously
> decided that it wasn't worth it. He had occasionally considered moving to
> Europe (or elsewhere) since the late 1920s, and contrary to Lynn's
> speculation that he had not taken into accoung how Oona might feel about
> expatriation, the two of them had discussed the possibility of relocating
> outside the US in the 1940s.
>
> Chaplin had emotional ties to England and definite appreciation for the United
> States, but he was not committed to any one country. There was no reason
> for him to risk immolating himself to gain acceptance by a specific nation.
>
> What amuses me is that the activities of the right against Chaplin, such
> as costing him money by trying to prevent the showing of _Verdoux_ and
> _Limelight_ and eventually driving him out of the country, had the
> unrecognized side effect of costing the US government
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 11:55 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> bachu... RemoveThis @rogers.com
> wrote:
> >Given that you feel you can't dismiss
> >Budenz's claim that Chaplin was a
> >dues-paying member of the Communist
> >Party, you must then feel the
> >government was correct in rescinding his
> >re-entry permit.
> No.

Why bring the claim up then?

How is it relevant?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 10:00 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >>>Kinda reminds me of Ahmad Chalabi.
> >>How dooes Iraq relate to the topic
> >>of Chaplin?
> >I don't remember mentioning Iraq. Can
> >you show me where I did?
> >What I DID say was that Budenz
> >reminded me of Chalabi
>
> Which is an obvious off-topic
> political jibe.
>
> >Budenz was not unlike any number of
> >other relatively insignificant people
>
> He was not insiignificant within the CPUSa.
>
> >who
> >tried to increase their own importance by
> >using Chaplin's name in less than honest
> >ways. Given his proven (lack of)
> >credibility,
> > I fail to see why anyone would place the
> >kind of unskeptical significance in what
> >Budenz said that you do. But then, I
> >thought that was obvious about Chalabi
> >too.
>
> Budenz was very aware of the inner
> workings of the CPUSA and thus
> his statement cannot be easily dismissed.

He was a liar and a perjurer whose testimony was for sale. How much
easier can it get? Unless you let ideology trump judgement.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 10, 1:33 am, "David Totheroh" <dtothe... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> He was a liar and a perjurer whose testimony was for sale. How much
> easier can it get? Unless you let ideology trump judgement.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
At this point it might be pertinent to point out that even an
unsympathetic biographer of Chaplin (I think it was Kenneth Lynn) was
honest enough to point out that there has been no -- repeat, no --
documentation coming out of the former Soviet Union since its fall to
indicate that Chaplin was ever a member of the Communist Party.

And the party has just donated a huge archive to NYU, so presumably
people will be trolling through it looking for Chaplin material.
Whether they find it or not is another story.

I sincerely doubt that Chaplin was ever a party member, but during the
war he pretty obviously supported the Soviet Union.

But then, so did Churchill, who made a point of saying how much he
liked Stalin. :)

Tom Moran
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

David Totheroh wrote:

>Oh and by the way, in case you don't >know (and George will never tell
you),
>Budenz was once a CP member himself
>before making a very nice living by
>deciding to become a professional
>anti-comunist witness.

He was also editor of the Daily Worker,
the house organ of the CPUSA. \

None of the issues you raised invalidates
his statement about Chaplin.


>Kinda reminds me of Ahmad Chalabi.

How dooes Iraq relate to the topic
of Chaplin?
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

bachusio RemoveThis @rogers.com
wrote:

>Given that you feel you can't dismiss
>Budenz's claim that Chaplin was a
>dues-paying member of the Communist
>Party, you must then feel the
>government was correct in rescinding his
>re-entry permit.

No.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

David Totheroh wrote:


>>>Kinda reminds me of Ahmad Chalabi.

>>How dooes Iraq relate to the topic
>>of Chaplin?

>I don't remember mentioning Iraq. Can
>you show me where I did?

>What I DID say was that Budenz
>reminded me of Chalabi

Which is an obvious off-topic
political jibe.


>Budenz was not unlike any number of
>other relatively insignificant people

He was not insiignificant within the CPUSa.

>who
>tried to increase their own importance by
>using Chaplin's name in less than honest
>ways. Given his proven (lack of)
>credibility,

> I fail to see why anyone would place the
>kind of unskeptical significance in what
>Budenz said that you do. But then, I
>thought that was obvious about Chalabi
>too.

Budenz was very aware of the inner
workings of the CPUSA and thus
his statement cannot be easily dismissed.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

bachu....DeleteThis@rogers.com
wrote:

>><Given that you feel you can't dismiss
>>>Budenz's claim that Chaplin was a
>>>dues-paying member of the
>>>Communist
>>>Party, you must then feel the
>>>government was correct in rescinding
>>>his re-entry permit.

>>No.

>Why bring the claim up then?

>How is it relevant?

It is relevant as a possible explanation
of Chaplin's sympathy to the Soviet
Union.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

David Totheroh wrote:

>He was a liar and a perjurer

When was he prosecuted for perjury?

> whose testimony was for sale.

Being a former communist, he was
not what I'd call an admirable figure
so I don't hold him up as an example
of high virtue---but that doesn't mean
he wasn't telling the truth about
Chaplin.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 9, 10:46 pm, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >He was a liar and a perjurer
>
> When was he prosecuted for perjury?
>
> > whose testimony was for sale.
>
> Being a former communist, he was
> not what I'd call an admirable figure
> so I don't hold him up as an example
> of high virtue---but that doesn't mean
> he wasn't telling the truth about
> Chaplin.

Like I said, unless you let ideology trump judgement.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952